Ashok Kumar Jain v. Shri.D.B.Batki & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Criminal Application is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. For the reasons recorded in the decision of V.K.Jain and others Vs. this Court in the case of V.K.Jain and others Vs. V.K.Jain and others Vs. Pratap V. Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, I Pratap V. Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, Pratap V. Padode…
- Para 44. Liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the applicant makes a statement that the necessary revision will be preferred within four weeks from today. In view of this statement, the trial…
Judgment
Shri.D.B.Batki & Anr. ..Respondents ... L.A.Ruben i/b D.H.Petit and Co. Advocate for Applicant Mr.B.H.Mehta A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2005 DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2005 DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2005 P.C.P.C. P.C.
Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The applicant is seeking quashing of process issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Mumbai in C.C.No.19/SF/2003. In the said case process was issued against the applicant under Clauses 3 and 5 of Schedule VII of Rule 57 of -2- the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963.
For the reasons recorded in the decision of V.K.Jain and others Vs. this Court in the case of V.K.Jain and others Vs. V.K.Jain and others Vs. Pratap V. Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, I Pratap V. Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, Pratap V. Padode reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, am of the opinion that the applicant has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the applicant prefers a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process.
Liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the applicant makes a statement that the necessary revision will be preferred within four weeks from today. In view of this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial for a period of four weeks.
On the necessary revision being preferred by the applicant before the concerned Sessions Court, -3- the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the necessary parties.
Operative part
Criminal Application is disposed of.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Criminal Application is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Oct 2005. The bench was V K TAHILRAMANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.